I just had to turn off Rachel Maddow.

She's starting of on a rant about guns, citing a few killings that happened over the past week. I don't know what it is about some people on the left that they lose the capacity for rationality when guns are involved. If you rounded up a list of half a dozen murders where the perpetrator was on drugs, most rational people would recognize that that isn't evidence that all drugs are evil; if you rounded up a half dozen murders where the perp used a knife, that wouldn't be used as evidence to ban all sharpened metal; and yet, some people suddenly think that anecdotes become data when guns are involved.

I really wonder how long this is going to persist before more people in the party finally get it through their head that this is a dead issue. A large majority of Americans are on the other side, and it's been getting larger for decades. Hell, even 55 percent of DEMOCRATS polled have a positive view of the NRA. The continued hardon some people in the party have for banning every modern weapon and punishing the hundred million gun owners in this country is pure 195 proof electoral poison.

59. What's your point? n/t

60. The point I'm making to that poster

is that Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty by a jury of his peers. It just amazes me that people who were not there think they know everything that happened that night. Myself, I'm going to wait until I hear all the evidence before I pass judgement.

63. Well...

It's not like we know nothing...so yes, people are entitled to have an opinion about the event - it is not a blank slate. He get's innocence before the law, but not in the court of public opinion. There's not too much evidence that we haven't seen in all fairness...

I for one think he won't be convicted because there were no witnesses and thus it's going to be very hard to prove beyond a "reasonable doubt."

68. I never said people aren't entitled to an opinion

I think you are correct about him not being convicted because the Special Prosecutor aimed to high with her 2nd Degree Murder charge, in my humble opinion, she should have gone for Manslaughter which would have been easier to prove.

88. You are right

she gave them what they wanted and now she will probably lose the case.
I never considered you unreasonable and if I came across that way, I apologize.
I just think your wrong on the definition of the 2A just as you think I'm wrong.
My beliefs on the 2A are deep seated and I seriously doubt that I will change my mind any time soon.

115. Yes it's Gman's statement

That's what this sub-thread is about. Then Apache commented on how Gman was making it sound like he had all the facts. Then you responded about how it was only an opinion. Then I responded to you about why how it sounded as if he was asserting it as fact. Now you're simply declaring it again as an opinion while Gman is downthread declaring that's he's stating facts.

151. I like how you charge ad hominem...

155. The difference is

I attacked every one of your arguments until you finally gave up debating and went to the easy but dishonest, "you're a Tea Partier" insinuation. That signaled to me that the debate was over, and since you elected to stop arguing the point and fall back on insults instead, I'm perfectly free to give my opinion of your behavior, which is an accurate one, apparently.

You're not very good at this, really. Normally, I'd advise someone out of pure sympathy not to embarrass themselves. But you seem to have no problem with it, so knock thyself out.

160. Dodgers 9 - Padres 8

Padres pitchers walked 4 straight batters to blow a tie in the bottom of the ninth.

I obviously have better things to do than debate in depth people with their own agenda. The hilarious thing is that the Tea Party line was in response to a post that mention tea parties that was made by a poster other than yourself. Keep on playing those games - NRA types seems to like games!

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Apr 15, 2012, 11:38 AM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Fucking Gun threads---Let's make them immune to the alert button and juries and let them just kill each other. trumad
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The post adds nothing to the discussion, but does not seem to be over the top.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

109. Wow

you seem to have it all figured out, shit, why should we even have a trial, according to you, he's guilty so let's just dispense with the trial and go straight to prison, do not pass go, do not collect $200.00. And here I thought that this was a progressive website.

114. Sounded pretty clear to me from the 911 operator

Please don't say Z had no obligation to do what the 911 operator said. Surely you're not going there. I'm trying to cut you some slack here and give you a way out...

Are you trying to say Z was a bloody mess and his nose was on the side of his face? Well there's that little pesky video 40 minutes later where he looked just fine. Now, please don't go the "who you gonna believe? Me or your lyin' eyes" route either.

118. Apparently your the only

one who heard that clearly, Oh, I forgot, you and Hoyt were there that night and witnessed everything that went down.
So I guess that we are going to see you both called as prosecution witnesses, or, should we just skip the trial and go straight to the sentencing phase, or better yet, just send him to prison on you interpertation of what YOU think actually happened?
The stupid, it hurts.

126. Riiiiiiiiiight

140. Well, I appreciate

your "trying to cut me some slack here and giving me a way out", but frankly, I really don't feel that challenged or intimidated by you or your argument. Thanks anyway.

As far as, "Please don't say Z had no obligation to do what the 911 operator said", it goes back to my original point of whether or not it was a valid police order vs. an informative statement. "We don't need you to do that". If I'm on the phone to a 911 operator and offer to come down to the station to file a police report, and they tell me, "You don't need to do that", does that mean I'm forbidden to do so?

With regard to that "pesky little video", you do know that it has since been enhanced and shows what many interpret as wounds to the back of his head, don't you?

"Are you trying to say Z was a bloody mess and his nose was on the side of his face?" Really? Do you think that kind of hyperbole adds to your argument? When you have a bleeding injury about the face or scalp, once hemostasis is achieved EMTs will often use disposable wipes made for that purpose to clean off smears of blood. Cops were bringing him in for an interview and don't especially like their subjects sitting around for hours with their faces still drenched in blood from a previous wound.

I don't know if Zimmerman is guilty or not. He may well be a lying, murderous, racist thug. The difference is, I'm willing to look at all the evidence, or lack thereof, critically, and not assume facts not in evidence. I also reserve the right to point out facts not in evidence, asserted by others, as part of the discussion and let the chips fall where they may.

152. I wouldn't expect in the least for you

To be challenged or intimidated since I don't really expect you to stray from your canned responses or even realize you have no valid argument.

I'm sure Fox has some enhanced/altered video of Z with a crooked swollen nose and blood streaming down the back of his head. The facts are your boy didn't have a scratch on him and was nothing but a big pussy with a gun.

179. You're wrong

1. I have heard the tapes and I didnt hear that word uttered
2. It was a 911 operator and they have no lawful authority to tell you to do anything, but if they did she said "you dont have to do that" thats not much like an order to me.
3. The video is inconclusive

I know you want to skip the fair trial part of this but you're just going to have to deal with it.

181. A point of correction

It was not a 911 operator. It was a civilian dispatcher who was called on a direct line, not through 911.

1. You are correct. It's been confirmed through voice analysis he said "F*cking cold"
2. Addressed
3. Video is inconclusive. We'll have to wait for trial to get EMT/hospital statements. (He went to the hospital the next day).

190. Wow!

189. I think it will come down to the forensics

What angle did the bullet enter Trayvon's body and how much distance was between them when the gun was fired. If the evidence shows Trayvon was standing and at greater than an arms length it's pretty much all over.IMHO

94. I read that canned response 2 weeks ago

How 'bout some intelligent response that's your's. Just like that other guy. All you gun guys seem to be able to do is regurgitate canned responses like an ape behind a computer screen reacting to symbols and getting a reward.

Think for yourself. And keep it relevant. Don't bring up the Rosenbergs either or Sacco and Vanseti.

161. Source???

171. Don't have one

But I figured since you are siting rumors that you have no proof of, like whether or not Zimmerman had a broken nose(unless there is an x-ray report out there I'm not aware of or you have x-ray vision), I could do the same. My goal is not to get into a pissing contest. I just wanted to point out that rumors and half truths could go both ways. I don't know if Zimmerman is guilty or not. I don't want to jump to conclusions one way or the other. If it turns out he is guilty of murder, lock his ass up and throw away the key but don't convict him before the trial has even began. Hell the investigation hasn't even been completed and you got idiots out there like the rapist Mike Tyson calling for his head. I hate to say it but it looks like a bunch of race bating to me and most people are falling for it.

2. Are you denying we have a problem with gun violence in this country? n/t

8. I'm pointing out that the violence problem in the US isn't the result of guns.

Otherwise we wouldn't have seen a 30% drop in violent crime over the last 20 years while we also saw a 50% increase in the number of guns in private hands. Continuing to push a long-since debunked agenda, which is grossly unpopular with the public, doesn't do anyone any good.

14. Really?

Try prove that statement. I don't think you can...

Also, I think most professional sociologists would dispute your claim that the decline in the violent crime rate is a result principally because of increasing number of guns in frankly just about the same percentage of hands. I think most people would credit other factors such as increasing economic equality, better policing, and better medical technology in reducing the effects of violent crime upon society. You can repeat that gunnerhood myth but it doesn't make it true...

It also depends on what statistics you're looking at in making such an assertion as a "30% drop in violent crime."

Violent crime rates in the United states per 100,000 population beginning in 1960. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

35. you jumped to the conclusion

Also, I think most professional sociologists would dispute your claim that the decline in the violent crime rate is a result principally because of increasing number of guns in frankly just about the same percentage of hands.

He did not say that. He said gun sales are up and violent crime is dropping. You are the one leading to conclusions.

I think most people would credit other factors such as increasing economic equality, better policing, and better medical technology in reducing the effects of violent crime upon society. You can repeat that gunnerhood myth but it doesn't make it true...

According to Thom Hartmann, the income gap is growing wider. There are a number of factors. Canadian violent crime rates follow the same sine wave as ours. Ours go up and theirs go up, ours drops theirs drops.

It also depends on what statistics you're looking at in making such an assertion as a "30% drop in violent crime."

56. "He said gun sales are up and violent crime is dropping."

= correlation, not causation. Also, we know that to a great extent when we consider this statistic that it reflects the same people owning more guns to an extent.

According to Thom Hartmann, the Constitution of the United States does not empower the Supreme Court of the United States to determine the constitutionality of a law. I've never been a Thom Hartmann fan. What I said was a much broader statement than your considering...in particular, the economic prosperity of minority communities has increased on average. I should have said equality and prosperity, our standard of living as defined by a number of metrics is up on average.

71. = correlation, not causation.

that is what I said. You are the one reading causation into it. Best way to track that is compare ownership license application rates in places like Illinois. If more people have FOIDs, then it is reasonable to assume more are buying guns.

Hartmann does not like Marberry v Madison. I agree with him about 80-90 percent of the time.

Minorities on average, could very well be. But a return to the gilded age would be a bad thing. That is why people in the cities in US and Europe "toted" while those in the "wild west" actually did not as a rule. They did not fear crime, so saw no reason to. They also had a stronger sense of community. It was also easier to feed yourself without money in the rural west, so there was less of a reason to turn to crime.

Here is an experiment. Compare the number of CCW permits in shall issue states like Florida or Louisiana relative to population. Then take a poll to see who carries concealed in say, Vermont (who never required a permit) or Wyoming (who had shall issue from 1995-2011. Now it is Vermont light.) I'm willing to bet Wyoming and Vermont will have lower percentages because of their lower crime. I am not saying more "toters" causes more crime, I'm saying more crime (or perception of) causes more "toters".

113. I have heard the phrase before

but not in that context. My example was of a safety net in the sticks (there were also social safety nets as well, remember I said greater sense of community. Check out the Grange movement, and where the Socialist Party had its best successes. Hint, North Dakota and Wisconsin). I see you post in outdoors as a hiker, I am wrong in guessing you picked up some of the same "outdoorsy" skills?

That sense of community is and was certainly at odds with Ayn Rand. In Ayn Rand's world, Coffeeville, KS, and Northfield, MN's, bank robberies would have been successful because there would be no sense of community.
I would not say I would be a "rugged individualist" in the same sense that Hoover meant it. Far from it. I learned about how bad the gilded age sucked in a book, like most people in the US. When I went to the Philippines, I saw it first hand.

3. Sorry, Wraith, NO WAY I could have a positive view of the NRA,

and I don't know about hardons for banning every modern weapon and punishing the hundred million gun owners in this country, tho I do think that prohibiting MANY from owning guns would be a positive public policy, and I do think that keeping arms created for killing during WARS should be banned from the streets of the country.

7. We don't have military weapons on our streets.

Despite the deliberate conflation of fully automatic assault rifles with semi-automatic "assault weapons," there are in fact relatively few military weapons in civilian ownership.

I don't like the NRA either, but the reality is that according to polling even a majority of Democrats don't feel the same. Continuing to slam the solid 60-80% majorities of the country which support current laws isn't doing us any favors.

135. It is MUCH too often TOO convenient

227. Still doesn't seem to make a difference

Major gun control laws in other nations have not had an impact on their violent crime rates (their rates were already low to begin with, and passage of the laws did not have a significant impact).

The simple fact is that if we want to combat violent crime, we need to stop messing around with the poison pill of gun control (that fails to actually do anything to the violent crime rate) and start spending that political capital on things that WILL impact it (education, job creation, etc.).

98. Why semantics are important in this debate

"Assault weapons - just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms - are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons - anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun - can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

The anti-gun crowd is well-known for using and abusing semantics to try and deceive people into supporting restrictions on things they do not understand.

104. *yawn*

128. Is that really your point?

Do you believe that it's acceptable for laws to be vaguely worded and not provide a clear definition of the items they seek to ban?

A: "Let's make possession of assault weapons a felony."
B: "What's an assault weapon?"
A: "You know -- one of those things. I know them when I see them."

If you can't describe the characteristics of what you want to ban, how are we supposed to have an informed discussion about it? The only possible conclusion is that you're not really interested in an informed discussion.

139. You call it "tired" because you can't call it wrong. Of what value is an

opinion if you don't know the fundamentals of the topic (whether it's guns or anything else) you're opining on?

And, when one becomes aware of a deficiency of knowledge, does it make more sense to complain about the "tired argument", or to take advantage of the discussion to learn, and thus put one's own argument on a more solid foundation?

Caveat: one is of course allowed to have absolutely any opinion one wants on any topic under the stars. I haven't noticed claims here that a lack of understanding means a DUer "can't have an opinion." But I do question why someone wouldn't want to rectify that lack and continue in the conversation...

148. If you like...

I will gladly call it wrong.

It's the wrong argument about the topic, it's what is commonly known as a bait and switch, and it's not an argument that leads anywhere but a one-dimensional answer that is more characteristic of our political enemies than of progressive society.

You know what we mean when we assault weapons, we know what we mean when we say assault weapons, and so debating that point is fundamentally asinine and shows the lack of deep thought that is put into the gunnerhood mythology that is so popular in this group (which exists primarily as a holding cell for for the gun cultists).

153. You may do so gladly, but you do it mistakenly

Why would you think it asinine to suggest that participants in a discussion should strive to express themselves clearly, using accurate and specific terminology for topics of that discussion? I think discussion forums like this one can be informative (for example, I actually didn't know what assault weapon / assault rifle meant when I first came here, so I asked), but they work best when everyone pays attention and tries to both understand and communicate effectively.

Reread this subthread from the first post: even here there is a mixing of the term "assault weapon" with types of weaponry that are not included in that category. So this doesn't work:

"You know what we mean when we assault weapons, we know what we mean when we say assault weapons..."

I actually don't know what some gun control advocates mean, when they use words for which they clearly don't know the meanings, or mean something other than the common meaning. The only "lack of deep thought" here is thinking that that doesn't matter. Rather than argue for your right to use incorrect phrasing, why not learn from the discussion and thus enable yourself to better craft and express a position?

You should look up "bait and switch", by the way - it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means; although you may know what you mean by it, that doesn't do any good when what you mean isn't what it means to everyone else. See how this works?

154. "I actually don't know what some gun control advocates mean"

Then you haven't been paying attention for 20+ years...

why not learn from the discussion and thus enable yourself to better craft and express a position?

Or you could just accept that it's a subjective term (which is how the dictionary uses it) rather than attempt to make it an entirely technical argument...which is then mocked and totally discounted as of being no use because god forbid the gun nuts accept that some weapons have no legitimate sporting or self-defense use.

Like I said, asinine...

And on Edit: The Gun Lobby plays games while people die because they can make a quick buck. That's the fact.

157. You may choose ambiguity over clarity if you prefer, of course

In truth, I don't see why you're staking out this particular position; it certainly doesn't lead to a strong argument or an effectively-expressed opinion if a poster is unable or unwilling to clearly say what they mean. But everyone gets to choose for themselves how to present their ideas...

(And as an aside, if you're going to quote me as your subject line you ought to do it honestly - not clip a part that alters the meaning. )

158. Accepting a certain-level of ambiguity is part of life...

In honesty, you're much to well-spoken to fall for such intellectual traps; such as carrying on about how there is no such thing as an assault weapon and how there is no generally acceptable definition that can be used for the purpose of debating gun control policy. But everyone gets to choose for themselves their own political ideas...

(The meaning was not altered, it simply brought the argument you are making to the forefront. )

209. Crap, crap, and more crap.

Still playing that game? That discussion has been had and the gunnerhood is incapable of discussing it beyond well we need pistol grips because they're ergonomic. Liars.

The discussion has not been "had" -- you refuse to have it. In fact, you're running from it as fast as you can.

Pistol grips are more ergonomic than straight stocks. That is a fact, not a lie. As for the "need" aspect, that is relative and subjective, but banning something merely because someone doesn't "need" it is more characteristic of a totalitarian state than a democratic one. Show me the inherent danger in ergonomic rifles. Are they too easy to fire? OK, let's mandate that rifle stocks be embedded with ground glass and covered with motor oil. That should slow the "gunnerhood" down some.

Also, doesn't it strike you as a little bit odd you're on a Democratic website touting the benefits of assault weapons?

Does it strike you as a bit odd that you're on a Democratic website calling for unclear laws that can be applied at the whim of law enforcement?

"Assault weapons" my ass. Let's just call them "modern rifles." See how that game works?

194. Clarity and precision is especially important in the context of policy

Assume for the sake of argument that there really is a subcategory of firearms that require special legislative treatment. The aspects and features that require that special treatment would therefore be usable as a definition, to discriminate the guns that do need treatment specially from those that do not. This delineation would be essential in crafting appropriate legislation, and very useful in explaining the need for it.

But if a clear definition, that accurately separates the special category from all the rest, can't be given, then the existence of that special category itself is called into question. If 'assault weapons' can't in fact be meaningfully described relative to other firearms, then maybe they're just all 'firearms' to be treated the same.

Gun control advocates want to ignore that last paragraph, I assume because they like the scary sound and resultant confusion of the 'assault weapon' moniker. Rather than discuss and explain why a so-called assault weapon needs special policy, they prefer to simply start from that unfounded assumption. But honest discussion starts from a clear understanding and expression of what's being discussed, so it's anything but a trap to point out misleading or ambiguous terminology, and to insist on clarity...

162. You don't know what you mean either, apparently.

Or you could just accept that it's a subjective term (which is how the dictionary uses it) rather than attempt to make it an entirely technical argument...which is then mocked and totally discounted as of being no use because god forbid the gun nuts accept that some weapons have no legitimate sporting or self-defense use.

So you say, "Some weapons have no legitimate sporting or self-defense use."

To which I say, "Which weapons?"

And you say, "Assault weapons."

So I say, "What's an assault weapon? Do you mean like an assault rifle? I thought those were already banned or strictly controlled."

And you say, "It's a subjective thing," and expect the discussion to end there. And you think we should have a felony on the books that is based on subjective criteria.

An "assault weapon" is a legal rather than a technical designation. It identifies a semi-automatic rifle that possesses certain ergonomic and cosmetic features that cause it to resemble a military rifle, although it does not have the full-auto capability of its military counterpart. Its military appearance offends some people, causing them to want to ban it. They succeeded in 1994, in an effort that had more to do with class snobbery than with public safety. That, in a nutshell, is/was the assault weapons ban.

212. I don't think it means what you think it means

In Washington state back in 2009 or 2010, someone tried to pass a bill where the humble pump-action shotgun would have been labelled an "assault weapon."

So yeah, your argument is moot. "Assault weapons" are whatever the gun-control lobby says they are, and it's subject to change like the weather. That's why we ask, because a lot of ordinary gun-control activists can't give an answer to the question.

36. Right.

39. Do you even know what an "assault weapon" is?

It can be anything from a hammer to a car. Now it your thinking of an assault rifle, those are strictly controlled and are rarely used in any crimes and are so expensive to purchase that the average gun owner can't afford them.

182. Very hard

automatic weapons are regulated at the component level - any parts or kits that could turn a semi-auto into full auto are tightly regulated. On top of that, any gun that can be easily converted is regulated as an automatic weapon. Semi-automatic rifles are designed so they cannot be converted.

And lets not forget a basic fact - rifles of all kinds are very rarely used as murder weapons.

195. Bump firing is not full auto

if it was, it would be illegal.

Instead of playing what ifs, how about you dig out some statistics showing the danger? How many people have been killed by full auto rifles in America? Rifles and shotguns account for about 3 percent of murders with semi-automatics being a fraction of that total - a total that is steadily going down. I don't see a real threat to society there.

11. Actually, the problem is drugs.

Or more accurate, the black market drug trade, same as the black market trade in alcohol during prohibition. The vast majority of murders in the US stem from gang activity to control the drug trade. You don't hear about those, because it's poor black and brown young men turning up dead in Chicago and Baltimore, but most likely around 60 to 75% of our murder rate comes from the black market. After prohibition, when there were dire predictions about how legalization of alcohol would create a massive spike in crime, you know what happened? Crime dropped by about two thirds, almost overnight. If we could get over our own failed policies, we wouldn't HAVE a problem. But some people insist on continuing to do the same thing over and over, expecting different results.

242. That doctrine was once called "Mutual Assured Destruction"

243. has nothing to do with MAD

Mutual Assured Destruction, or mutually assured destruction (MAD), is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of high-yield weapons of mass destruction by two opposing sides would effectively result in the complete, utter and irrevocable annihilation of both the attacker and the defender, becoming thus a war that has no victory nor any armistice but only effective reciprocal destruction. It is based on the theory of deterrence according to which the deployment, and implicit menace of use, of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use by said-enemy of the same weapons against oneself. The strategy is effectively a form of Nash equilibrium in which neither side, once armed, has any rational incentive either to initiate a conflict or to disarm (presuming neither side considers self-destruction an acceptable outcome).

245. You're afraid that some unnamed, unknown nefarious person is armed & will do you harm.

So you feel the need to arm yourself, which causes others to be afraid & arm themselves, and so on, and so on. This is based upon the theory of deterrence, according to which the deployment and implicit menace of the use of weapons is essential to threaten the enemy, in order to prevent the use of those same weapons by said enemy against oneself. And guns have the additional feature that anyone can be colored as the "enemy". After all, they might be carrying a gun!

It's really the perfect set up for an insane arms race, based on nothing but blind fear & ignorance - which we see being played out live on the 6 o'clock news every night. And unnecessarily takes the lives of tens of thousands of innocents each year.

246. you get this where?

So you feel the need to arm yourself, which causes others to be afraid & arm themselves, and so on, and so on.

Me personally? No. In general, that is not how it works in the real world.

This is based upon the theory of deterrence, according to which the deployment and implicit menace of the use of weapons is essential to threaten the enemy, in order to prevent the use of those same weapons by said enemy against oneself. And guns have the additional feature that anyone can be colored as the "enemy". After all, they might be carrying a gun!

or muscle bound, knife, what ever. Still not MAD. A better description of MAD is if both are carrying grenades, no winners.

It's really the perfect set up for an insane arms race, based on nothing but blind fear & ignorance - which we see being played out live on the 6 o'clock news every night. And unnecessarily takes the lives of tens of thousands of innocents each year.

sounds like you have the blind fear going. Most of those who "armed up" can't legally have guns under current law. It is not "tens of thousands" and many are also gangsters.

250. I'll make it simple for you: Zimmerman was afraid of "gangsters", so he carried a gun.

And he had a right - in your view - to shoot Martin, because Martin looked like a "gangster" to him and Martin might be carrying a gun. So Zimmerman anointed himself to be judge, jury and executioner for Martin.

Of course, now that the facts have come out we all know how absurd Zimmerman's story is.

Your problem is that you're making a whole host of assumptions - just like Zimmerman did - which simply aren't true. Every stranger is a "suspicious person", even if they're your neighbor. Every suspicious person is a "gangster", even when they're not. Every "gangster" carries a gun, especially when they don't.

There's no way for you to verify any of your assumptions, and given the situations most people find themselves in, they're generally not true. You and the other Zimmermans supporting these notorious CCW laws are constructing your arguments on a RW fantasy world and NRA lies which have no basis in reality. You go out into the world ready & willing to kill anything that startles you or makes you angry. And people - INNOCENT people, for the vast majority of cases - like Trayvon Martin die because of it.

256. Nonsense.

"Your response amounts to little more than "I'm rubber and you're glue..."

Nonsense.

You uttered these words: "There's no way for you to verify any of your assumptions...", both before and after making your own assumptions about another poster.

Pointing that out, and illustrating for the entire world how much of a hypocrite you are for applying them to others but not yourself, is no more a "RW argument", than pointing out how asshole-ish, juvenile, and just plain mean your unfounded baseless assertions about another poster, that posters views, and that posters motivations were.

13. Maybe when progressive gun owners do something to reign in the extremist actions of the NRA

Show me one piece of anti-gun legislation (gun control legislation) that Obama has championed. Just one.

There are none and yet, many of our own progressive gun owners join the far RW in backing NRA as they do everything possible to defeat Democrats. And you wonder why many of us really resent those who do that?

24. Maybe he came to the realization...

...that the legislation that is typically brought up by the anti-gun crowd has ZERO. Again, ZERO impact on the criminal use of firearms. So what BS is getting pushed against whose professed interests? I think the Brady Campaign pushes a lot of BS on this particular topic.

47. I don't believe their power is a myth.

61. That was political power as defined by the ability to swing elections...

...and also the decreasing statistical relevance of guns in the American home, not straight "NRA power" in general. They have strength, but they do not have swing, no one that isn't for the NRA's extremist agenda already is going to be for it next year. It's like the gay marriage debate, people are just becoming more tolerant on average, doesn't mean the hateful aren't developing even more intense hatred.

49. They are; don't know about 'a certain poster.' Will check.

40. Apparently it is ok that NRA supports only RWers and does everything possible to defeat Dems.

Allies with ALEC that has, among its extremist agenda, active efforts (unfortunately quite effective to date) to enact legislation to restrict voting and suppress the ability for young, old, impoverished, and minorities (overwhelmingly Democratic voters) to vote.

I am beyond disgusted that so many progressives KNOW this (whether they care to acknowledge or not) and STILL support NRA unquestionably.

(NASHVILLE, TN) — The National Rifle Association (NRA) has endorsed Senator Rosalind Kurita (D-Clarksville) in her write-in campaign for re-election to the 22nd district in the state Senate. The group had endorsed Sen. Kurita during her primary victory and has now endorsed her for the general election in November.

The National Rifle Association or NRA officially endorsed Governor Bill Richardson's re-election campaign today. Richardson spoke before a crowd of local, national, and even international competitors in the National Police Shooting Championships. He spoke about his recent training required to carry a concealed weapon.

177. No, thats not what I think.

"Apparently it is ok that NRA supports only RWers and does everything possible to defeat Dems."

Thats what YOU said.

Note the qualifying word "ONLY", used by you in that sentence.

"a handful--mostly DINOS... and you think THAT proves your point...?!"

No, thats not what I think.

I KNOW it disproves what you said. Think theyre endorsing those Democrats, in an effort to defeat them, do you? You did say "does everything possible to defeat Dems", didn't you?

Feel free to name which of them is a DINO. Then work your way through them, until you have a large majority of them - you know, "most" - that are DINOs. Seems like an aweful lot of effort to go through to to demean Democrats, particularly on Democraticunderground, but hey, knock yourself out.

Start with Bill Richardson and Brian Schweitzer. Oh, wait. they aren't. How about that "RWer" Howard Dean - Endorsed MULTIPLE times by the nra. No? You did say "NRA supports only RWers" didn't you?

Well, which ones are the DINOs then?

You asserted it, its up to you to substantiate it.

And unless you at least attempt it, you make perfectly, crystal, clear, that your anti-gun ideology is of a much higher priority than your allegiance to Democrats. And if you neither attempt it, nor attempt and succeed, you're just slurring Democrats with no evidence what so ever provided - in the name of anti-gun ideology.

Say, isn't it people from the anti-gun side of the issue that say we pro-gun Democrats are the ones always slurring Democrats in the gun forum?

Those shoes youre now wearing, are the shoes that anti-gunners have been trying to put on the feet of we pro-gun Democrats for a long time now.

185. i'm sure you do.

"You say you are progressive, yet you defend those who would do everything possible to ensure Democrats/LIberals/Progressives are defeated at every trun."

LOL. and youre still saying it as if it were true.

Nope, I'm afraid thats a poor and inaccurate characterization of the way things are.

Injecting truth into what was a clearly false screed - yours - is not defending anyone. And injecting truth into a what was a clearly false screed - yours - was my sole intent. I don't just sit idly by while anti-gun idealogues say things that aren't true, you see.

As to the nra...they work to get those that are ANTI-GUN defeated, because they're anti-gun. Not simply because theyre Democrats.

The endorsements of Dean, Richardson, and Schweitzer are a few among many elegant examples that prove it.

And disprove your screed.

And as to those that they DO work to defeat...well...i'd be interested in examples that didn't earn it through a voting record, and/or public hostility toward gun rights. I really doubt there are any.

But I'd entertain any examples you might care to provide.

Theres the old addage:

Play with a rattlesnake and you may just get bit. Don't blame the rattlesnake for it when you do.

Its nobodys fault but your own.

Thats a pretty good summation of the nra, and how they react to those who attack and or are hostile to gun rights.

I prefer it that way, rather than nobody with any political power protecting my rights, even as imperfect as it is.

If certain politicians wish to tangle with the nra by attacking the rights of people where guns are concerned or voting against the rights of people where guns are concerned, and knowing full well beforehand the wrath they'll incur in doing so, I have exactly zero sympathy for them, or the consequences of their fully informed choice. The same way as I have exactly zero sympathy for the dumbass who knowingly picks up a rattlesnake and gets bit, or the dumbass who knowingly sticks their finger into a live light socket.

38. Typical of the anti-gun zealots...I am a gun owner, I hunt...

Please link us to some gun worship, I would love to see it because I never have actually seen gun worship.

We have strict gun control in this country, something like 30,000 gun control laws, they just aren't enforced. The wild west even had strict gun control so you really don't know what the wild west was all about.

23. Doubt it.

34. Here is something for you and your gun buddies. I wish to hell Obama would put some gun

control in this country. I'm sick and tired of seeing innocent kid being shot because he was black with this stand your ground law. That is nothing more than legalized murder. You can say guns don't kill people bullshit. Who cares. Normal people in this country think we need some gun controls yes even people who own guns. I know a few.

41. one thing

what if he was a white kid with a purple mohawk and lived in a trailer court? Do you think any of these people would give a rat's ass? I doubt race has that much to do with it. That is the narrative the media wants to push, which explains why NBC doctored the 911 tapes.
What if Martin's parent's did not have the money to hire lawyers to attract attention? Who would care?

58. gun control isn't the issue

We have had gun control since the founding. Florida has stricter laws than half of the states. In fact, the south has traditionally have had stricter laws. Do you know what the current gun laws are? Federal laws? I'm amazed that people really think you can by assault rifles and sub machine guns at Wal Mart, even though they have been basically banned since 1934.

Laws of different states? Do you know the laws of your state? The history of them? Florida banned open carry in 1893 because some white people didn't like African American workers "toting". That was the real reason. Didn't have anything to do with "a more civilized society". Neither was South Carolina's 1902-1965 handgun ban. New York's state law was written by and named after a gangster.

During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, he controlled much of the city's criminal activities between 14th Street and the Battery in New York City. He is credited as being one of the earliest ward representatives to use his position to enable the activities of criminal street gangs.

In the places that have stricter gun laws than Europe have higher murder rates? Places like Chicago, NYC, USVI, Puerto Rico? Vermont and Wyoming are as safe as if not safer than Europe.

A white kid has the luxury of walking anywhere at any time without being stop

looking like that in a gated community? Get real. You don't know this place that well. The only difference is Bill Maher would find it amusing.
My son gets stopped in Florida for wearing cammo. He is white.

102. Why?

WE NEED SOME GUN CONTROL.

For the last 20+ years we have had ever-more-liberal gun laws in this country. We've gone from virtually no states allowing concealed carry to now almost every state allowing it. Other laws have also made progressive strides to support the second amendment.

And over the same time period, violent crime has declined every year, and is now at 1960's levels.

183. That is baloney. Obama hasn't instituted one gun law. Not one. If it ever got on to any ballot

I sure as hell would control guns, period. I wouldn't stop it if you like to go hunting for game. But that is it. I am sorry I know alot of people here will disagree but that is MY PERSONAL feelings. I know it will never happen. But if it was up to me I'd get rid of them.

207. Maybe that's the issue right there

Your anger should be specifically directed at the 2008-2010 Congress if you were expecting more gun laws.

And how would you "control guns"? I don't think you would find many people on this board that would object to removing every single illegal gun from the hands of criminals. I believe the people would support it 100% as long as you could do it legally, and not trample on their rights. I'm sure someone has a plan.

Like it or not - the horse is out of the barn and it's not going back in.

208. Like or not ---- your right about that. I don't like and there is nothing I can do about it. So I

say let the crazies kill themselves. Sooner or later maybe if enough children get shot on the streets maybe then some common sense laws will finally be put into place. Maybe if La Pierre has a wife and kid and some takes them out then who knows maybe he'll suggest that law. Of course I don't want something like this to happen. All am saying is leaders with strong support had something happen to their family member maybe they'd see things different. I know it won't change.

215. I'm not much of a fan of criminals with guns

I would really prefer it if they didn't have them. The world would be a better place. However, for you to call them crazy is a bit of an insult. Some criminals are that way because they have zero opportunity, and zero education. And the drug war is very profitable.

220. Well to me killing the person who kills someoneelse makes it way to easy. Kill the prisoner and

that's it. He gets off. I'd let him/her in jail til the day he died and remind him every day what was done. He could never see the light of day. However saying that there are exceptions. Like that doctor who family in Vt or Ct (I can't remember what state) was raped and murdered in their home those 2 bastards do deserve the death penalty. I would electuate them or shoot them. No IV there was something so bad about this case that I think they deserve the death penalty.

210. Uh, I didn't say he did.

That is baloney. Obama hasn't instituted one gun law. Not one. If it ever got on to any ballot
I sure as hell would control guns, period. I wouldn't stop it if you like to go hunting for game. But that is it. I am sorry I know alot of people here will disagree but that is MY PERSONAL feelings. I know it will never happen. But if it was up to me I'd get rid of them.

I didn't say he did.

What I said is that since 1986 we have had ever-more-liberal firearm laws in this country. By that I mean more permissive towards the right to keep and bear arms - more freedom.

Yet over the same period of time violent crime has declined dramatically.

Also, you should note that the second amendment is not about hunting, it is about insuring the security of free states. That means killing people, not game animals.

223. Do you deny the role of swing voters in presidential elections?

there is a large group of voters in the middle that can be persuaded either direction - all Presidential campaigns are build around this fact. The American electorate is not divided into two static blocks.

52. Few DO get to the root of the violence;

55. Alot of it, in my humble opinion,

is this insane war on drugs, if drugs were legalized and regulated, that would go a long way towards reducing the violence associated with the drug trade.
I fully agree that there are many too many inequities here.

236. Well, as usual you didn't answer the question but I'm used to the ball

being punted.

Now, show me where I said I support RW Republicans and their goals. You can't, because I've never said it or exhibited it.
I support gun rights and applaud advances in legislation that increase gun rights regardless who proposes it.

If you consider 2A rights to be Republican, you're misguided and deluded, but it's your right.

255. Right.....

......because you think the issue all is about control advocates punishing you. And what makes you think the 'rant' is coming exclusively from gun control advocates. What nonsense.

Here's what our party has to say about firearms.........such a rant (not):

FirearmsWe recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce common- sense laws and improvements – like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.